CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant challenges his robbery conviction on the ground the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. Court agree, as the facts known to the arresting officer did not establish probable cause.

The parents of two minors adjudicated dependents of the juvenile court appeal from orders entered after a six-month review hearing, in which the juvenile court denied the fathers request to place the children in his home, found that reasonable reunification services had been provided and ordered that reunification services continue. For the reasons stated below, Court dismiss the appeals.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking his Proposition 36 probation (Pen. Code, 1210.1 et seq.) and sentencing him to state prison for four years. He contends the judgment should be reversed because the trial court did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that his failure to report to his probation officer was not a drug-related probation violation. Additionally, he argues that the court abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate his probation based on unusual circumstances. Court reject these arguments and affirm.

Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (Pen. Code, 191.5, subd. (a) [hereafter section 191.5(a)].) The trial court found true defendants prior conviction for driving under the influence causing injury. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years to life.
On appeal, defendant contends the police officer who testified at trial that defendant had been driving under the influence of a drug was not qualified to rely on the toxicology report in rendering his opinion. He also claims there was insufficient evidence that he was under the influence of a drug for purposes of section 191.5(a). Finding no merit in these contentions, Court affirm.

A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and found true an enhancement allegation that in committing the murder he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon. (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life plus one year, he appeals from the ensuing judgment contending there is no substantial evidence the murder was of the first degree; the trial court erred in failing to conduct a competency to stand trial hearing and to instruct sua sponte that evidence of provocation can be considered in determining the degree of murder; his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to request such an instruction; and the sentence for the offense constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in light of his history of use of controlled substances and psychiatric disorder. Court affirm the judgment.

Brothers defendant Dalwinder Dhoot and plaintiff Kashmir Dhoot, as partners, owned and operated two truck stops, also known as travel plazas. As often happens in familial business relationships, the brothers experienced a falling out and decided to dissolve the partnership and divide the assets. Dalwinder and Kashmir entered into a dissolution agreement, which contained arbitration language.
As the acrimony between the brothers increased, Dalwinder served Kashmir with a demand for arbitration and sought to rescind the dissolution agreement. Kashmir responded by filing an action seeking a judicial declaration that the dispute Dalwinder sought to arbitrate was not subject to mandatory binding arbitration, and seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and order to show cause. Following briefing and argument, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction to enjoin the parties from prosecuting the arbitration and all associated proceedings in the dispute between the brothers. Dalwinder and his wife Gurdiv (collectively, Dalwinder) appeal, contending the dissolution agreement encompasses their claims and Kashmir waived any objection to arbitration. Kashmir argues Dalwinders appeal is untimely. Court find the appeal timely and affirm the judgment.

Appellant, the mother of the minors, appeals from the juvenile courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 360, subd. (d), 395.) Appellant claims the risk of harm at the time of the jurisdictional hearing was insufficient to support the jurisdictional findings and removal of the minors. Court affirm.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a) count one), driving with a .08 percent or higher blood alcohol level causing injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b) count two) and hit and run driving involving an injury (Veh. Code, 20001, subd. (a) count three). The jury also found that defendant had inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of these offenses (Pen. Code, 12002.7, subd. (a)) and that he was driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, 14601.5, subd. (a) count four).
Defendant appealed. Court have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record in this case and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Pursuant to a negotiated settlement in four cases, defendant pled guilty as follows:
In case No. 05F7990, to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)); in case No. 05F9492, to assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)); in case No. 06F1564, to assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) plus an admission of an on-bail enhancement ( 12022.1, subd. (b)); and in case No. 06F1565, to assault ( 243, subd. (d)) and vandalism ( 594, subd. (b)(1)), each a misdemeanor. In exchange for defendants pleas and admissions he was promised no more than seven years in prison and the dismissal of other charges.
Defendant received a seven-year term as follows: In case No. 05F7990, the middle term of three years; in cases Nos. 05F9492 and 06F1564, an effective consecutive term of one year each plus two years consecutive for the on bail enhancement; and in case No. 06F1565, credit for time served. The court imposed restitution fines of $700 each pursuant to sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, a court security fine of $20 in each case pursuant to section 1465.8, an administrative fee of $400 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (a), restitution of $4,024.31 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f), to the victim/witness program; and victim restitution to William Smith of $1,383.97. The court awarded defendant 272 days of presentence custody credit. The judgment is affirmed.

On June 28, 2006, the Sacramento Police Department received a report that defendant Thomas Leroy Hennagans 13-year-old biological daughter was two months pregnant and that defendant had impregnanted her. Both defendant and his daughter admitted they had engaged in sexual intercourse with each other. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for selling and furnishing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), and possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5). Gonzalez contends that the trial court erroneously ruled that his police station confession was admissible. Gonzalez also contends that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by calling a witness whose testimony allowed the prosecutor to introduce incriminating statements the witness had made about Gonzalez. Court conclude that the trial court did not err in ruling that Gonzalez's police station confession was admissible, and that defense counsel's decision to call the witness in question did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Court thus affirm the judgment of conviction.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The trial court denied their petition to correct or vacate the arbitration award. Plaintiffs contend that, contrary to the trial court's ruling, the arbitrator denied them a fundamentally fair hearing under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2. Court affirm.

Adriene Bidwell filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Gregory Bidwell. The parties stipulated that all issues had been settled except the community's interest, if any, in a residence located at 3746 Silverleaf Lane, Vista, California. The trial court concluded the residence was owned by Adriene's parents, but the community was entitled to reimbursement of funds used to complete its construction. The trial court found Adriene breached her fiduciary duty to Gregory in the management of community funds, and awarded Gregory attorney's fees. Court affirm.

A juror in this case was guilty of misconduct when the juror gave verbal encouragement to the principal prosecution witness, a young robbery victim, when the two shared an elevator during the course of the trial. However, where, as here, the juror's encouraging statements were innocuous and in fact the witness did not respond to the statements, the presumption of prejudice which arose by virtue of the misconduct was successfully rebutted. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.